Tuesday, November 13, 2012

In Case You Missed It.......(11-13-2012)

Republicans across the country are upset with the party’s election defeats last week, and many see strategist Karl Rove as a major culprit.

His Crossroads groups raised more than $300 million to defeat President Barack Obama and regain GOP control of the Senate. They failed on both accounts, and many donors to the cause aren’t too happy.

Some of them are upset that Crossroads had such inaccurate polls, and others say more money should have been spent at the grassroots level rather than on TV advertising, sources tell Politico. Rove’s competitors within the party charge that he’s doing more harm than good and are trying to draw donors away from him.......

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus......

22 comments:

Pam
said...

Can I just say a big fat NO to Michael Steele?! The man talked too much and didn't seem to know when to shut up. We might would have picked up even more seats in 2010 had it not been for his foot-in-mouth disease!

As far as Rove goes, I really think people need to stop blaming the man. It's over and we need to move on. All of the conservative pollsters were off this time for whatever reason.

There is another thing that people are forgetting. In the 2010 landslide for the GOP, many of the minorities and young people didn't vote. They aren't interested in mid term elections. They only vote during presidential contests.

Wow, people really imbue politicians with God-like powers if they think voter turn-out is somehow within one politician's control. Barack Obama should not be credited with record turnout of the social-issues Dem voters. The people should be credited. Hollywood can get a big portion of the credit since they've made Republican social stances deadly unpopular.

But to blame Romney for not getting the vote out enough is just petty. We lost because the other side didn't play fair. They had media and superstars on their side, they made the election about little things, and small-minded people responded with their votes. End of story.

There is no way to win an election with state controlled media. If Romney had attacked on Benghazi, the media would have made Romney a war monger faster than you can say Candy Crowley.

This is not to mention the voter fraud. If voter fraud is found to have occurred, who will report it? It's not going to be the state owned media. The will label those who uncover voter fraud as crazy and full of sour grapes. In fact, it is a control tactic of the media to mock, ridicule, and discredit; any combination of that will do.

Just look at Petraeus. On the yahoo front page, it's been non-stop stories about his affair. Who has ever cared about Petraues' love life? It is just to discredit him--along with some ridicule for moral impropriety--, in case he dares make Obama look bad with Benghazi testimony.

I apologize for getting so defensive. It's a knee jerk reaction having heard the same things over and over. It's probably similar to how a Romney supporter feels about The pro-choice or RomneyCare attacks.

"Peace through strength", which includes protecting & defending our overseas diplomatic personnel, is NOT "warmongering".

It's the exact opposite - just ask the family members of the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.------------------------That wasn't the point at all, not a fan of peace through strength. You need not look any further than what happened to Sarah Palin to see my point. She spoke up and was filleted for it. The press holds all the cards.

The media was salivating at Romney going strong on Benghazi to make him out like a Bush, crazy, war monger. It would have been the only thing on news the next day.

There's no question that the media bias played a part in Romney's strategy. We're the media moderately balanced, Romney would have gone for Benghazi. But he was all too aware of what they were up to. (Don't forget the moderators at the debates, for example. Romney had to argue with them, too. He only won the first debate cause the moderator didn't expect him to be so strong. They were ready by the next debate.)

But I think this is what it boils down to: Is a presidential election winnable, given the Obama controlled media, and their various cover ups for him, not to mention the massive voter fraud and media silence?

I think it's game over.

I don't think national elections are winnable for Republicans, anymore, due to media and their cover ups for Obama and their out for blood tactics with any Republican candidates (Obama hasn't even been vetted yet).

The election last week had Hugo Chavez written all over it. This is not America as we have known it. That all changed the day Obama got elected.

Allen West is another example. More outrageous voter fraud.

It's time to realize communism has permeated. I hope there's a brave leader bold enough to call Obama out on it.

Sorry for the long post. That's really all I wanted to say won't post anything else.

Romney was right to leave Benghazi alone, for a variety of reasons; the main one being that due to Bush over reach, everyone is afraid of Republicans and foreign policy. I still think Bush is going to be our Carter, and is good for 2 or 3 election victories for the other side.

Some of the veteran posters on this site will remember me, others might not but the ones that do will probably remember that I am a staunch Palin supporter. As most of you know I credit Palin's hand in the 2010 victories, I know a lot of you credit Romney's. I never discredited his part, in fact I was more than willing to give both their equal due... but that wasnt possible on this site back then. If you shared an opinion that conflicted with the drones, you were mocked and ridiculed.

Some of you, alos, might remember that I called for Romney to NOT run for President, and instead run for RNC Chairman. It's a job that better suits his talents and skill sets. If it were at all possible I would hope he would run for that position now, but unfortunately he would lose. Like other failed Presidential candidates, in years past, his influence will fall and the Establishment will throw blame onto him rather than admit their own mistakes.

Their biggest problem is that he should have been the perfect candidate. He embraces social conservative ideals but rules with a moderate heart. He was their perfect candidate.